posted on March 25, 2007 08:23:28 AM new
GOP Support for Attorney General Erodes
Updated 10:30 AM ET March 25, 2007
By LARA JAKES JORDAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales eroded Sunday as two key senators sharply questioned his truthfulness and a Democrat joined the list of lawmakers who want him to resign over the firing of eight federal prosecutors.
"We have to have an attorney general who is candid and truthful. And if we find out he's not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on," said Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the Justice Department.
Specter, R-Pa., said he would wait until Gonzales' scheduled testimony next month to the committee on the dismissals before deciding whether he could continue to support the attorney general. He called it a "make or break" appearance.
To Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., Gonzales "does have a credibility problem. ... We govern with one currency, and that's trust. And that trust is all important. And when you lose or debase that currency, then you can't govern. And I think he's going to have some difficulties."
Hagel cited changing stories from the Justice Department about the circumstances for firing the eight U.S. attorneys. "I don't know if he got bad advice or if he was not involved in the day-to-day management. I don't know what the problem is, but he's got a problem. You cannot have the nation's chief law enforcement officer with a cloud hanging over his credibility," Hagel said.
posted on March 25, 2007 08:34:48 AM new
I wonder how long Bush will continue to stand by "You're doing a heck of a job" Gonzales? Bush keeps saying he supports Gonzo but he also did the same thing to Rummy.
Heck with two more years of scandals in the White House, it only helps to get the Republicans out of the White House in 2008.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on March 25, 2007 12:45:17 PM new
One of our representatives has become the first to write to the President requesting that he fire Gonzo. I don't like the guy very well but I applaud his action. Gonzales needs to go.
posted on March 25, 2007 08:32:38 PM new
Bush has the worst track record of presidential appointments, in my opinion, since we first got to vote in 1960. Where does he get this simps? And Condie Rice travels and travels and travels, but nothing much seems to get done.
Watching Gonzales on TV I could only think that his sole qualification was that he was Hispanic. Very sad--for us and for Hispanics. This guy is seen, rightly or wrongly, as representing all Hispanics. Not fair, but it's the case.
_____________________
"There is more to life than increasing its speed." --Mahatma Gandhi
posted on March 25, 2007 09:03:20 PM newThis guy is seen, rightly or wrongly, as representing all Hispanics.
You're right, roadsmith, and he is an embarrassment to us all. His chief qualification though, isn't that he's Latino, it's that he is completely and utterly, 110% devoted to Bush. So devoted that he happily oversaw the political harrasment of Federal employees in good standing in order to push his agenda. It makes me sick.
posted on March 25, 2007 09:21:08 PM new
Oh I don't think he represents Hispanics...his being Hispanic will be greatly overshadowed by the fact that he's just another bushit sleazy crook...and they come in all colors and both sexes...the bushit administration is a equal opportunity employer.....they only discriminate against HONEST people
posted on March 26, 2007 06:42:22 AM new
I agree, mingo. The thought of Gonzales representing Hispanics never occurred to me. He simply represents the chief law officer in the country who has failed to maintain the integrity of his position....a cog in the wheel of the Bush rogue administration riding roughshod over the Constitution.
posted on March 26, 2007 08:52:18 AM new
I guess I need to explain myself. When I said that Gonzales represents all Hispanics, I meant in the eyes of ignorant people (lots of them out there, biased, prejudiced, etc.). In my long life and experience as a liberal and later as a feminist, I've noticed that the "only" in a group, whether it's a woman or a minority, stands out and in the eyes of some represents and speaks for all of "them."
When I was the only woman on our city council in a Utah city, the good folk would ask me what the woman's position would be on a certain topic. I could only tell them MY position, of course.
We had a large Hispanic population in our city but all "white bread" on the city council. I encouraged a wonderful Hispanic man to run for the council. He won and is now running for his 5th term in office. He was wonderfully valuable to the council when a Hispanic who spoke halting English wanted to address us. Jesse would interpret for him and help him get his point across. He also lived in and represented a district heretofore not represented at all.
But there were people who, if they didn't like this man, would say well, they're all alike. Isn't that just like a "Mexican"? Etc. They'd ask him what the people of his race thought about certain topics.
This is what I meant about Gonzales.
_____________________
"There is more to life than increasing its speed." --Mahatma Gandhi
posted on March 26, 2007 09:53:44 AM new
I know what you mean, Roadsmith, there unfortunately ARE people who only see skin color or what sex a person is.
It's like back in the "Dark Ages" of the 60's and 70's when women were moving into traditional "men's" jobs.
If a woman was lousy at it they would say "See, WOMEN can't do that job"....NOT "that individual can't do that job."
And if she was BETTER than the men obviously she was a bi!ch !
Ha, I walked that line many times!!!
....and I was always the Bi!ch and proud of it!
No, if there's one thing the bushit administration proves is that sleaze doesn't discriminate.
posted on March 26, 2007 10:41:17 AM new
Lordy, I could write a book about our years in Utah. If it was hard where you were living, imagine in a patriarchal state like Utah.
I worked for the chamber of commerce of a large city; there were 750 men and 11 women as members. I asked why not more women and was told (1) they don't WANT to join; (2) they don't run businesses here, etc. etc.
After 1 year of hard work, we integrated women (imagine!) into that chamber; within 3 months we had 350 women who HEADED BUSINESSES from our small city--an infusion of dues money, and, more important, new energy. Also, we learned very quickly that women chairs of committees actually do the work themselves, not asking a secretary or a chamber staffer to do it.
When I applied first to a city job for which I was enormously qualified, the interview committee included the chief of police. He asked me, "Mrs. Smith, your husband has a hot shot job over there on the university campus. What makes you think you could hold down this job?" (The implication, I'd be too busy helping him!?)
I waited for the personnel director or the city manager to tell him that was an illegal question, but nothing. I thought as fast as I've ever thought and said I'd always supported my husband in any position he held, and he'd also supported me. I didn't get the job, but 6 months later the city mgr and personnel director both, independently, told me they wished they'd hired me. Too late, I was into my chamber job by then.
I also ran for office and was elected twice, but that was because I was super-careful not to offend. We'd get together with our heathen friends once a month, share what we'd heard about that religion and what had happened to us along the way, and laugh and laugh. In public, though, we were VERY careful.
_____________________
"There is more to life than increasing its speed." --Mahatma Gandhi
posted on March 26, 2007 04:37:28 PM new
Monica Goodlick a high official under Alberto Gonzales in the U.S. Justice department refused to testify in front of Congress today. She sighted her 5th amendment rights of self incrimination.
It seems that Ms.Goodlick was also the go between the Justice Department and the White House.
posted on March 27, 2007 02:52:10 PM new
MINGO,
The spelling was a little joke of mine this time. I was wondering if anyone would pick up on it. Leave it to a sharp gal like you. ha ha
See even a bad speller like me can have a little fun sometimes.
Where are all the new-cons they must be out planting flowers for Bushy political demise.
[ edited by bigpeepa on Mar 27, 2007 02:53 PM ]
posted on March 27, 2007 06:09:25 PM new
Gotta admit you had me going, Bigpeepa! I thought That CAN'T really be her name !!! And then I was hoping it was!!!LOL!
The bushit repugs are going to have their very own "Monicagate" !!!
posted on March 28, 2007 12:07:18 AM new
About that Gonzales thing....our founding fathers worked to make a law saying that high ranking government officials couldn't fire a man of "meritorious" reputation...if they did it would be an IMPEACHABLE offense.
Welllllll, the "Patriot" Act destroyed that little law....wasn't that just too, too convenient.......
posted on March 28, 2007 08:49:00 AM new
'About that Gonzales thing....our founding fathers worked to make a law saying that high ranking government officials couldn't fire a man of "meritorious" reputation...if they did it would be an IMPEACHABLE offense.'
posted on March 28, 2007 10:31:23 AM new
I have Google. I know my history. I have no problem with you. Since I seem to have missed something in my study of history, I only had a short question regarding the law you mention.
I post under no other names. This is my real name.
posted on March 30, 2007 01:07:52 AM new
Ex-Aide Contradicts Gonzales on Firings
Updated 3:42 AM ET March 30, 2007
By LAURIE KELLMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush isn't rushing to the rescue of his old Texas friend, Alberto Gonzales, after the attorney general's one-time lieutenant undercut his old boss' account of the firings of eight federal prosecutors.
Rather than merely signing off on the firings, as Gonzales has repeatedly stated, his former chief of staff says the attorney general was in the middle of things from the beginning.
"I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate," Kyle Sampson told a Senate Judiciary Committee inquiry Thursday into whether the dismissals were politically motivated.
"I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign," Sampson said.
Sampson also told the panel that the White House had a large role in the firings, with one-time presidential counsel Harriet Miers joining Gonzales in approving them. And under questioning from Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Sampson said that looking back, he should not have advocated the firing of one prosecutor in particular, New Mexico's David Iglesias.
The administration has maintained previously that the firings were appropriate because the prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president.
Asked about Gonzales during a closed-door meeting with House Republicans on Thursday, Bush did not defend his longtime friend, according to one official who attended the session and demanded anonymity because it was private.
Instead, Bush tepidly repeated his public statement: The attorney general would have to go up to Capitol Hill and fix his problem, according to this official.
Publicly, the White House backed away from defending Gonzales even before Sampson had finished testifying.
"I'm going to have to let the attorney general speak for himself," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
Even so, Bush "is confident that the attorney general can overcome these challenges, and he continues to have the president's support," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
One of the eight federal prosecutors ousted last year, Bud Cummins told the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service Thursday that the Justice Department suffered from an "over-enamorization" with the White House.
Cummins, who was U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., acknowledged that he served at the political pleasure of the president, but said Gonzales was remiss for not placing a "firewall" between politics and the work of the Justice Department.
As political theater, Sampson's appearance on Capitol Hill ranked with some of the most eye-catching hearings of recent years; the witness was faced off against a host of cameras and senators inclined toward lawyer-like interrogations in a cavernous Senate hearing room packed with spectators.
Sampson's account of the firings of eight U.S. attorneys over the past year lent weight to some of the most damaging Democratic criticism about the matter: that Gonzales was at the heart of the firings despite ever-changing Justice Department accounts of how they were planned; that some of the prosecutors were fired for political reasons; and that White House officials _ including presidential counselor Karl Rove _ played more than a limited role in the firings.
Afterward, one of the two Senate Republicans who are key to Gonzales' professional fate said he found Sampson credible and left the hearing with more questions about the attorney general and the firings than he had to begin with.
"He has many questions to answer," said Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel's ranking Republican. Sampson's conflicting account with Gonzales' pose "a real question as to whether he's acting in a competent way as attorney general," Specter said.
Gonzales has said, repeatedly, that he was not closely involved in the firings and largely depended on Sampson to orchestrate them.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that Gonzales has clarified his statements.
"His discussions with Mr. Sampson were focused on ensuring that appropriate people were aware of and involved in the process," Roehrkasse said. "He directed Mr. Sampson to lead the evaluation process, was kept aware of some conversations during the process, and that he approved the recommendations to seek the resignations of select U.S. attorneys."
Sampson resigned March 12. A day later, Gonzales said he "never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood" in the firings.
Gonzales is not scheduled to appear publicly on Capitol Hill until April 17 in front of the same Senate committee. More and more Democrats and Republicans have called for him to step down, but Roehrkasse said the attorney general has no plans to resign.
The grim-faced Sampson, a longtime and loyal aide to Gonzales, said other senior Justice Department officials helped to plan the firings, which the White House first suggested shortly after Bush won a second term in 2004.
Sampson said he was never aware of any case where prosecutors were told to step down because they refused to help Republicans in local election or corruption investigations. He also said he saw little difference between dismissing prosecutors for political reasons versus performance-related ones.
Sampson said he should have been more careful to prevent Paul McNulty, the deputy attorney general, and William Moschella, the principal associate deputy attorney general, from giving incomplete or misleading information to Congress in describing the dismissals.
He said that White House political staffers working for Rove were involved closely in the plans to replace prosecutors _ as evidenced by thousands of department e-mails released to Congress.
It was Miers, he said, who initially floated the idea of firing all 93 federal prosecutors and ultimately joined Gonzales in approving those who were turned out.
___
AP Special Correspondent Dave Espo contributed to this report.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on March 31, 2007 06:46:39 AM new
Senator Demands AG Clear Iglesias' Name
Updated 7:57 AM ET March 31, 2007
By JENNIFER TALHELM
WASHINGTON (AP) - A New York senator is demanding a retraction from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on behalf of New Mexico's former U.S. attorney, who was fired along with seven other prosecutors last year.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote Gonzales on Friday demanding that the attorney general clear David Iglesias' name. Schumer's letter came the day after Gonzales' former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, testified before Congress that in hindsight, he would not have recommended Iglesias for dismissal.
Sampson orchestrated the firings for department officials as part of a plan to replace some prosecutors in President Bush's second term. He added Iglesias' name late in the process but on Thursday said he couldn't remember exactly why.
"In light of these startling admissions by your former chief of staff, it is imperative that you restore Mr. Iglesias' tarnished reputation by confirming that his performance as a U.S. attorney did not warrant dismissal," Schumer wrote to Gonzales.
Iglesias has repeatedly said that he wants a written retraction from the Justice Department stating that performance had nothing to do with his dismissal.
"I'm deeply grateful to Senator Schumer for writing the letter to Mr. Gonzales," Iglesias said in an interview Friday. "I hope after reviewing Mr. Sampson's testimony, the Justice Department does the right thing."
In his letter, Schumer urged Gonzales to clarify immediately that Iglesias should not have been fired "in order to clear the name of this dedicated public servant."
A spokesman for Gonzales did not immediately return a call for comment on the letter. Gonzales vowed Friday to remain on the job in spite of calls that he step aside.
"I believe in truth and accountability, and every step that I've taken is consistent with that principle," Gonzales said when questioned at a Boston event about preventing child sex abuse. "At the end of the day, I know what I did. And I know that the motivations for the decisions that I made were not based upon improper reasons."
Asked why he had not resigned, as some Democrats and Republicans have demanded, he said, "I am fighting for the truth."
Gonzales' credibility took a fresh hit this week with the Senate testimony of Sampson, who said the attorney general was regularly briefed about plans to fire the prosecutors and was involved with discussions about "this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign."
Lawmakers impatient to hear Gonzales' side of the story said the embattled attorney general needed to explain himself quickly or risk more damage to his department.
"The quicker that can happen the better it will be," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., adding that he would wait until hearing from Gonzales to decide whether the attorney general should resign.
Gonzales is to testify on Capitol Hill on April 17, more than two weeks from now.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
""Linda_K
posted on March 30, 2007 07:14:30 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mingotree/crowfarm NEVER has backed up ANY statement of facts she makes.
NEVER.
Don't expect that to change now that you're asking the questions."""
Again, the unprovable from a neocon who now spends most of her time hiding under her bed
posted on March 31, 2007 07:45:40 AM new
Nope hellen....those you agree with and support are out there....alive and well.
NOT under my bed....I'm not like you....I don't welcome those who work against our Nation.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 31, 2007 08:05:45 AM new
As I've said before....your ability to see good and evil are screwed up. Always has been imo.
You think our enemies are are friends and WE mistreat THEM....rather than being able to see just whose goal it is to destroy America.
You're blind. And a wanna be European. All we have to do is recognize how poorly they're dealing with the muslim population....even home grown ones....who are fighting against the european nations that house them. Just as you do hellen. tsk tsk tsk
------------
And this liberal circus about our President firing those he appointed is nothing more than the liberals trying to distract voters from the real issue....that the liberals are COWARDS to just stop funding the wars they SAY they don't support.
But again, they LACK the guts to take responsibility for actually DOING anything about it.
Cowards all.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 31, 2007 08:09:58 AM new
Unprovable???? LOL
Nope, mingo, again you proved it right here in this thread.
NO ANSWER to the question asked of you. No further proof is necessary. You never have...this is no different now. And it's been your MO since your first handful of posts here.
You can never back up what you spew. tsk tsk tsk
============
" 'About that Gonzales thing....our founding fathers worked to make a law saying that high ranking government officials couldn't fire a man of "meritorious" reputation...if they did it would be an IMPEACHABLE offense.' "
"What law would that be?"
See....no answer from you. You can't EVER provide ANY proof to anyone who questions your false statements. NEVER
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 31, 2007 08:16 AM ]
